4 12. On March 31, 1998, the State requested that the President extend the deadline set for its observations on the briefs on reparations and make the new deadline June 6, 1998. On April 2, 1998, the Secretariat informed Peru that the deadline for its brief had been extended to May 12, 1998. 13. On April 20, 1998, the Secretariat asked the victim, the Commission and the State to specify how many witnesses and experts they would call at the public hearing that the Court was to hold on reparations at its seat on June 9, 1998, and what the purpose of their testimony or expert testimony would be. Further likewise, following instructions from the President, the Secretariat requested that, for the sake of procedural speed and economy, particular consideration be given to the possibility of presenting some testimonial and expert evidence in the form of sworn affidavits. 14. On April 28, 1998, the victim presented observations on the testimonial and expert evidence. She also offered herself as a witness and explained the purpose of her testimony. She added that she would submit sworn affidavits from the following persons: Julio Loayza-Sudario, Adelina Tamayo de Loayza, Gisselle Elena Zambrano-Loayza, Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza, and Delia Haydée, Carolina Maida, Julio William, Olga Adelina, Rubén Edilberto and Giovanna Elizabeth, all by the surname Loayza-Tamayo, and the expert opinion of an unnamed member of the "Fundación de Ayuda Social de Fieles de las Iglesias Cristianas" (hereinafter "FASIC"). In her brief, the victim also requested that: a) The government’s brief of reply, the deadline for which [was set to] expire on May 12, be forwarded to her so that she might present [her] observations and offer any documentary, testimonial and expert evidence deemed necessary and pertinent. b) The deadline for submitting the final list of witnesses and the sworn affidavits be extended until the content of the Peruvian government’s reply [was] known by her. 15. On May 5, 1998, the Secretariat informed the victim that: a) In keeping with the Court’s customary practice, the State’s brief on reparations [would] be sent to the Inter-American Commission and to the victim as soon as it [was] presented at this Secretariat. However, no provision is made for rebuttals and rejoinders at the reparations stage of the proceedings. b) Under the Court’s established rules and Article 43 of its Rules of Procedure, any evidence the Parties tender is to be set forth in the original brief each party submits for each stage of the proceeding. In the instant case, the victim properly tendered evidence in her brief on reparations. c) The note from the Secretariat, dated April 20, 1998, was intended to clarify certain discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the victim. Accordingly, it does not constitute another tender of evidence, as its sole purpose was to clarify the evidence tendered with the original brief. d) When any party believes there is just cause to tender an item of evidence at a time other than that already established, the circumstances must fit those set forth in Article 43 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. For these reasons, the President has denied your request for an extension of the deadline for presenting the final list of witnesses and experts. As for your request that a deadline be set for filing the sworn affidavits that were offered, the President will determine that deadline and you will be notified accordingly.